Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al

Filing 442

AMICUS BRIEF filed by American Council on Education and 36 Other Higher Education Organizations in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Tidwell, Natashia)

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOSTON DIVISION

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF
HARVARD COLLEGE (HARVARD
CORPORATION),
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-14176-ADB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
AND 36 OTHER HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONS
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Of Counsel:
Peter G. McDonough
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
One Dupont Circle
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]
[e-mail]
Stephanie J. Gold
Jessica L. Ellsworth
Joel Buckman
Matthew J. Higgins
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]
[e-mail]

Natashia Tidwell (BBO #657679)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
100 High Street, 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
[phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 2 of 35

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .....................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................3
I.

WITHIN BROAD LIMITS, THE LAW ALLOWS EACH INSTITUTION TO
DEFINE THE DIVERSITY THAT WILL PRODUCE THE EDUCATIONAL
BENEFITS IT SEEKS.........................................................................................................5
A.
B.

II.

Campus Diversity Yields Critical And Lasting Benefits.........................................5
Courts Owe Considerable Deference To Each Institution’s Concept Of
Diversity...................................................................................................................9

HOLISTIC REVIEW IS CRITICAL TO ACHIEVING THE EDUCATIONAL
BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY.............................................................................................13
A.

Holistic Review Is What Allows An Institution To Fully Evaluate
An Applicant, Including The Applicant’s Potential Contribution to
Campus Diversity...................................................................................................13

B.

Admissions Decisions Under A Holistic Review Framework
Cannot Be Reduced To An Easy-To-Predict Formula ..........................................18

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ADDENDUM

i

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 3 of 35

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES:
Fisher v. University of Texas,
570 U.S. 297 (2013)...............................................................................................................8, 9
Fisher v. University of Texas,
136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016)..................................................................................................... passim
Gratz v. Bollinger,
539 U.S. 244 (2003).............................................................................................................3, 21
Grutter v. Bollinger,
539 U.S. 306 (2003)......................................................................................................... passim
Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1,
551 U.S. 701 (2007).................................................................................................................11
Regents of University of California v. Bakke,
438 U.S. 265 (1978)......................................................................................................... passim
Sweezy v. New Hampshire,
354 U.S. 234 (1957).................................................................................................................10
United States v. Fordice,
505 U.S. 717 (1992)...........................................................................................................10, 11
United States v. Lopez,
514 U.S. 549 (1995).................................................................................................................12
OTHER AUTHORITIES:
About NMMI, New Mexico Military Instit., https://www.nmmi.edu/about-nmmi/
(last visited July 25, 2018) .......................................................................................................20
Amy N. Addams et al., Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls., Roadmap to Diversity:
Integrating Holistic Review Practices into Medical School Admissions
Processes (2010), available at
https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Roadmap%20to%20Diversity%20Inte
grating%20Holistic%20Review.pdf ........................................................................................11
Admission Review Factors and Process, Univ. of Md.,
https://admissions.umd.edu/apply/admission-review-factors-and-process (last
visited July 25, 2018)...............................................................................................................16

ii

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 4 of 35

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Philip G. Altbach, Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University,
and Development (1998)..........................................................................................................12
Anthony Lising Antonio et al., Approaching Diversity Work in the University:
Lessons from an American Context, in As the World Turns: Implications of
Global Shifts in Higher Education for Theory, Research and Practice (Walter
R. Allen et al. eds., 2012)...........................................................................................................7
Natasha Bach, Why the University of Chicago Is Dropping Its SAT/ACT Test
Requirement, Fortune (June 15, 2018),
http://fortune.com/2018/06/15/university-of-chicago-drops-act-sat-testrequirement-for-admissions/ ....................................................................................................18
Joseph R. Betancourt et al., Defining Cultural Competence: A Practical
Framework for Addressing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health
Care, 118 Pub. Health Rep. 293 (2003)...................................................................................19
Lee C. Bollinger, Why Diversity Matters, Chronicle of Higher Ed. (June 1, 2007),
available at https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Diversity-Matters/9152 ........................7
William G. Bowen et al., Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education
(2005).......................................................................................................................................10
Nicholas A. Bowman, College Diversity Experiences and Cognitive
Development: A Meta-Analysis, 80 Rev. Educ. Res. 4 (2010) ..................................................7
Arthur L. Coleman et al., Coll. Bd. Advocacy & Policy Ctr., A Diversity Action
Blueprint: Policy Parameters and Model Practices For Higher Education
Institutions (September 2010), available at
https://professionals.collegeboard.org/pdf/10b2699diversityactionblueprintwe
b100922.pdf .............................................................................................................................10
Nida Denson & Mitchell J. Chang, Racial Diversity Matters: The Impact of
Diversity-Related Student Engagement and Institutional Context, 46 Am.
Educ. Res. J. 322 (2008) ............................................................................................................7
Lorelle L. Espinosa et al., Am. Council on Educ., Race, Class, & College Access:
Achieving Diversity in a Shifting Legal Landscape (2015), available at
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Race-Class-and-CollegeAccess-Achieving-Diversity-in-a-Shifting-Legal-Landscape.pdf ...........................................17
Nisha C. Gottfredson et al., Does Diversity at Undergraduate Institutions
Influence Student Outcomes?, 1 J. Diversity Higher Educ. 80 (2008) ......................................7

iii

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 5 of 35

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Patricia Gurin et al., Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on
Educational Outcomes, 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. 330 (2002)......................................................5, 6
Sylvia Hurtado & Linda DeAngelo, Linking Diversity and Civic-Minded
Practices with Student Outcomes: New Evidence from National Surveys, 98
Liberal Educ., no. 2, 2012 at 14.................................................................................................7
David F. Labaree, A System Without A Plan: Emergence of An American System
of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century, 3 Int’l J. Historiography Educ.
46 (2013)..................................................................................................................................12
Letter from Timothy C.J. Blanchard, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Office for Civil Rights,
Region II, to Christopher L. Eisgruber, President, Princeton Univ. (Sept. 9,
2015), available at
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/02086002a.pdf ...................................................................................................................................18, 20
Jerome A. Lucido, How Admissions Decisions Get Made, in Handbook of
Strategic Enrollment Management (Don Hollser, Bob Bontrager & Assocs.
eds., 2015)..........................................................................................................................15, 16
Penn State Undergraduate Admissions: Application Review Process for FirstYear Students, Penn. State Univ.,
https://admissions.psu.edu/info/future/firstyear/applicationreview/ (last visited
July 25, 2018).....................................................................................................................16, 17
Dawn Rhodes, University of Chicago To Stop Requiring ACT and SAT Scores for
Prospective Undergraduates, Chi. Trib. (June 14, 2018),
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-chicagosat-act-20180614-story.html ....................................................................................................18
Gretchen W. Rigol, Coll. Bd., Admissions Decision-Making Models: How U.S.
Institutions of Higher Education Select Undergraduate Students (2003),
available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562589.pdf .............................................14, 15
Diane N. Ruble, A Phase Model of Transitions: Cognitive and Motivational
Consequences, 26 Advances Experimental Soc. Psychol. 163 (1994) ......................................6
Cecilia Capuzzi Simon, The Test-Optional Surge, N.Y. Times (Oct. 28, 2015),
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/education/edlife/the-test-optionalsurge.html.................................................................................................................................19
Patrick T. Terenzini et al., Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Classroom: Does It
Promote Student Learning? 72 J. Higher Educ. 509 (2001)......................................................5
iv

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 6 of 35

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
The Brown Degree: Grade Options, Brown Univ.,
https://www.brown.edu/academics/college/degree/policies/grade-options (last
visited July 25, 2018)...............................................................................................................20
Martin Trow, Federalism in American Higher Education, in Higher Learning in
America, 1980-2000 (Arthur Levine ed., 1993) ......................................................................10
Undergraduate Admission: Admission Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon Univ.,
http://coursecatalog.web.cmu.edu/servicesandoptions/undergraduateadmission
/ (last visited July 25, 2018).....................................................................................................16
Undergraduate Admission, Brown Univ.,
https://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/undergraduate-admission
(last visited July 25, 2018) .......................................................................................................20

v

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 7 of 35

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
Amici are 37 associations of colleges, universities, educators, trustees, and other
representatives of higher education in the United States. Amici represent public, independent,
large, small, urban, rural, denominational, non-denominational, graduate, and undergraduate
institutions and faculty. American higher education institutions enroll over 17 million students.
For decades, amici have worked to advance student diversity and to open wide the gates of
higher education to talented students of all races and backgrounds.
Amicus American Council on Education (“ACE”) represents all higher education sectors.
Its more than 1,700 members reflect the extraordinary breadth and contributions of degreegranting colleges and universities in the United States. Founded in 1918, ACE seeks to foster
high standards in higher education, believing a strong higher education system to be the
cornerstone of a democratic society. Among its initiatives, ACE had a major role in establishing
the Commission on Minority Participation in Education and American Life, chaired by former
Presidents Ford and Carter, which issued One-Third of a Nation (1988), a report on minority
matriculation, retention, and graduation.
ACE is joined in this amicus brief by the following organizations, who are described in
more detail in the Addendum: the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE); the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE); the American Association
of Colleges of Nursing (AACN); the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers (AACRAO); the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC);
the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU); the American
1

Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant both indicated their blanket assent to the filing of amicus
briefs in a joint filing on July 24, 2018. That same day, the Court granted leave to file this
amicus brief.
1

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 8 of 35

Association of University Professors (AAUP); the American College Personnel Association
(ACPA) College Student Educators International; the American Dental Education Association
(ADEA); the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC); the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association (ASHA); the Association of American Universities (AAU); the
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U); the Association of American
Law Schools (AALS); the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC); the Association
of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU); the Association of Community College Trustees
(ACCT); the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB); the
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU); the Consortium of Universities of the
Washington Metropolitan Area (CUWMA); the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE);
the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of NEASC; the Council of Graduate
Schools (CGS); the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC); EDUCAUSE; the Graduate
Management Admission Council (GMAC); the Law School Admission Council (LSAC); the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE); the National Association for College
Admission Counseling (NACAC); the National Association of College and University Business
Officers (NACUBO); the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education
(NADOHE); the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU); the
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA); Phi Beta Kappa; the
Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA); and the WASC Senior College
and University Commission (WSCUC).
Amici are neither fact-finders in this case nor positioned to parse and assess its substantial
factual record. Amici submit this brief to share perspectives and experience on issues of diversity

2

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 9 of 35

and admissions in higher education overall in ways that are important to understand as the Court
evaluates the parties’ positions.
Amici believe that a diverse student body is essential to educational objectives of colleges
and universities, and that each institution should be able to exercise its academic judgment to
determine within broad limits the diversity that will advance its own particular mission. Amici
also believe that holistic review remains a cornerstone for the consideration of race in admissions
because it gives each applicant individualized consideration and reduces no one to his or her
race. These principles, taken together with the presentations in the parties’ summary judgment
briefs, lead amici to conclude that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied
and Harvard’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.
ARGUMENT
This lawsuit is nothing more than the first step in a backdoor attempt to achieve the
sweeping relief sought—and denied—in Fisher v. University of Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016)
(“Fisher II”): the end of the consideration of race in college admissions and the restriction of a
university’s ability to assemble a diverse student body. Amici think it is more than coincidence
that this suit was filed against the very university that the Supreme Court has specifically cited
approvingly—dating back to Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265
(1978)—for its appropriate use of race as a part of individualized considerations in admissions.2
The Court should reject this latest attempt to eliminate the narrowly tailored use of race for
college admissions, just as the Supreme Court has rejected the attempts that came before this
case. At a minimum, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied.
2

Indeed, the majority decisions in both Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), and Grutter v.
Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), cited to Harvard’s holistic admission plan favorably. See Gratz,
539 U.S. at 272-273; Grutter, 539 U.S. at 335-337.
3

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 10 of 35

Harvard’s motion for summary judgment explains that while Harvard considers race
flexibly and contextually in pursuit of its goal to assemble a talented, diverse incoming class, the
University also uses many race-neutral means to pursue diversity and that its notion of diversity
is far, far broader than race-alone. The Supreme Court has made clear many times over that
higher education institutions may, within broad limits, define the diversity that will produce the
educational benefits they seek for all students and use their admission processes to further that
goal. Harvard is doing that. The Supreme Court has also approved the use of holistic review of
applicants, recognizing that it is a critical component of achieving the educational benefits of
diversity. Harvard, again, is doing that. Harvard’s motion explains that it does not engage in
racial balancing or use quotas, but rather it considers race flexibly, along with many other
factors. Harvard also explains that it identified no workable race-neutral alternatives that would
allow it to achieve its compelling interest in diversity while advancing its fundamental
institutional objectives, including academic excellence. Thus, Harvard, unlike the plaintiff,
offers the court a sound basis for granting its motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s theory rests on the assumption that college admissions decisions can be
reduced to a formula. They cannot. Admissions criteria substantially vary between institutions
and incorporate a range of quantitative and qualitative factors. The admissions process involves
academic judgments, and the point of holistic review is to provide applicants with individualized
consideration based on the totality of the circumstances. Reaching a final decision is far from a
formulaic process. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, in substance, asks the Court to
require fundamental changes to university admissions processes, and to mandate a more
mechanical process in which educators’ ability to choose which academic and other criteria they
wish to use, weigh, and apply play next to no role. That shift would undermine the recognized

4

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 11 of 35

freedom of a university to assemble a class that, in the university’s judgment, will best advance
that university’s particular mission. The Court should reject Plaintiff’s effort to upset decades of
Supreme Court precedent that has approved of holistic and individualized admissions processes
and should deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Harvard’s motion for summary
judgment outlines the University’s careful efforts to consider race as one of many factors as it
pursues its compelling interest in a diverse student body. Harvard’s motion should be granted.
I.

WITHIN BROAD LIMITS, THE LAW ALLOWS EACH INSTITUTION TO
DEFINE THE DIVERSITY THAT WILL PRODUCE THE EDUCATIONAL
BENEFITS IT SEEKS.
A.

Campus Diversity Yields Critical And Lasting Benefits.

Student diversity, including racial diversity, advances learning, enriches campus
environments, and prepares students to thrive in an increasingly diverse workforce and society.
Student diversity improves learning outcomes and promotes academic success—the core of
higher education’s mission. See Patricia Gurin et al., Diversity and Higher Education: Theory
and Impact on Educational Outcomes, 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. 330, 360 (2002) (Campus diversity
is “necessary [for] . . . higher education to achieve its educational goals.”). Both inside and
outside the classroom, interactions between students of different backgrounds introduce them to
new ideas and perspectives—the raw material of learning—and prompt them to reconsider their
own views in a reasoned and analytical way. Studies show that in-class diversity significantly
enhances students’ abilities both to problem-solve and to work on group projects. See Patrick T.
Terenzini et al., Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Classroom: Does It Promote Student
Learning? 72 J. Higher Educ. 509, 527 (2001). The educational gains of student diversity in less
formal settings are often even greater. In dormitories or dining halls, “informal interaction with
diverse peers [is] consistently influential [and positive] on all educational outcomes.” Gurin et
al., 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. at 359; see also id. at 351 (“[I]nformal interactional diversity [is]
5

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 12 of 35

especially influential in accounting for higher levels of intellectual engagement and self-assessed
academic skills . . . .”).
These results are not surprising. Students develop their analytical and intellectual
abilities through exposure to new theories and different perspectives. And when a peer presents
an unexpected perspective or new information, it is absorbed differently and more fully than if it
had been presented in a lecture. See, e.g., Diane N. Ruble, A Phase Model of Transitions:
Cognitive and Motivational Consequences, 26 Advances Experimental Soc. Psychol. 163, 171
(1994). Such student-to-student encounters facilitate intellectual exchange, which in turn
promotes complex and abstract thinking. Moreover, “[d]iversity enables students to perceive
differences both within and between groups,” Gurin et al., 72 Harv. Educ. Rev. at 360,
heightening their abilities for nuanced understanding and further refining their analytical skills.
Exposing students to an array of peer life experiences and perspectives is no less critical
to their personal development. So much of the education the “college experience[]” has to offer
occurs outside of the classroom. Id.; see also Bakke, 438 U.S. at 312 n.48 (“[A] great deal of
learning occurs informally . . . through interactions among students . . . .” (citation omitted)). In
diverse environments, students are more able to forge friendships with people different from
themselves. When new friends and classmates have unfamiliar perspectives or beliefs, students
are forced to challenge their own. In doing so, students decide which beliefs and values to
retain—and cultivate—and which to reconsider in favor of a newly discovered truth. This
process is essential to personal growth and the development of one’s identity.
And campus diversity prepares students to participate more effectively in our
increasingly diverse and interconnected society—another one of higher education’s core
missions. “The experience of arriving on a campus to live and study with classmates from a

6

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 13 of 35

diverse range of backgrounds is essential to students’ training for this new world, nurturing in
them an instinct to reach out instead of clinging to the comforts of what seems natural or
familiar.” Lee C. Bollinger, Why Diversity Matters, Chronicle of Higher Ed. (June 1, 2007).3 As
the Supreme Court has noted, “major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed
in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely
diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330.4 As these businesses
themselves recognize, “[t]he rich variety of ideas, perspectives, and experiences to which both
minority and nonminority students are exposed in a diverse university setting, and the crosscultural interactions that they experience, are essential to the students’ ability to function in and
contribute to the increasingly diverse community in the United States.” Brief of Fortune-100 and
Other Leading American Businesses as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents 9-10, Fisher II,
136 S. Ct. 2198 (No. 14-981). Further, businesses increasingly “operate and compete in a global
environment, and therefore need employees who can effectively serve and work together with
people from many different cultures.” Id. at 11.5 Top military officials have echoed: “More so

3

Available at https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Diversity-Matters/9152.

4

Since Grutter, the academic studies underpinning the Supreme Court’s pronouncement have
continued to accumulate. See, e.g., Anthony Lising Antonio et al., Approaching Diversity Work
in the University: Lessons from an American Context, in As the World Turns: Implications of
Global Shifts in Higher Education for Theory, Research and Practice 371 (Walter R. Allen et al.
eds., 2012); Sylvia Hurtado & Linda DeAngelo, Linking Diversity and Civic-Minded Practices
with Student Outcomes: New Evidence from National Surveys, 98 Liberal Educ., no. 2, 2012 at
14; Nicholas A. Bowman, College Diversity Experiences and Cognitive Development: A MetaAnalysis, 80 Rev. Educ. Res. 4 (2010); Nida Denson & Mitchell J. Chang, Racial Diversity
Matters: The Impact of Diversity-Related Student Engagement and Institutional Context, 46 Am.
Educ. Res. J. 322 (2008); Nisha C. Gottfredson et al., Does Diversity at Undergraduate
Institutions Influence Student Outcomes?, 1 J. Diversity Higher Educ. 80 (2008).
5

See also Brief of DuPont, IBM, Intel, and the National Action Council for Minorities in
Engineering in Support of Respondents 9-12, Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (No. 14-981) (applying
similar argument to underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM fields).
7

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 14 of 35

than before,” recent international conflicts “have required our military to perform a variety of
civil-military functions that called for increased cultural awareness and a greater sensitivity to
some of the ethnic and religious issues underlying military conflicts—qualities enhanced by
diverse leadership, and developed in a . . . diverse educational environment.” Brief of Former
Military Leaders as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents 3-4, Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (No.
14-981). Finally, effective civic participation also requires exposure to a variety of viewpoints; a
robust exchange of ideas makes students better-informed jurors, voters, and leaders. Grutter,
539 U.S. at 331-332. When college students learn how to break down racial and other
stereotypes and consider different perspectives, they carry those lessons with them their whole
lives. The individual students and society-at-large then reap the benefits, as our citizens are
better able to consider different perspectives or opposing viewpoints and see commonality with
those from different backgrounds.
In view of these facts, the Supreme Court has recognized the paramount importance of
campus diversity and has granted universities the freedom to pursue it within broad limits. Forty
years ago, the Court explained that campus diversity is one of the very few “compelling
interests” that can justify the government’s consideration and use of race. See Bakke, 438 U.S. at
320. In the last four decades, the Court has repeatedly confirmed Bakke’s central ruling. In
Grutter, the Court recognized that campus diversity’s educational benefits were “not theoretical,
but real,” and accordingly granted the University of Michigan Law School’s request to reaffirm
that “in the context of higher education, [there is] a compelling state interest in student body
diversity.” 539 U.S. at 328, 330. By 2013, campus diversity’s status as a compelling interest
was so entrenched that the parties in Fisher v. University of Texas did not even “ask the Court to
revisit that aspect of Grutter’s holding.” 570 U.S. 297, 311 (2013) (“Fisher I”). A few years

8

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 15 of 35

later, the Court removed all doubt, affirming once more that benefits of campus diversity, such as
“the destruction of stereotypes, the promotion of cross-racial understanding, the preparation of a
student body for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and the cultivation of a set of
leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry” deserve the highest regard under the
Fourteenth Amendment’s framework. Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2211 (internal quotation marks and
brackets omitted). The importance of student diversity and its status as a compelling interest
cannot be seriously disputed.
B.

Courts Owe Considerable Deference To Each Institution’s Concept Of
Diversity.

Because the compelling interest at stake is fundamentally educational in nature and
requires educational judgment, courts grant colleges and universities “[c]onsiderable deference”
to decide whether to pursue diversity and how to define it. Id. at 2214. In the context of higher
education, student diversity “takes many forms,” often including, but extending well beyond
race. Id. at 2210 (“[R]acial classifications may sometimes fail to capture diversity in all of its
dimensions . . . .”).
Although colleges and universities may not use racial quotas or engage in racial
balancing, they are entitled to decide for themselves the characteristics of a class most conducive
to the pursuit of their unique missions. Fifteen years ago, the Court held in Grutter that a
university’s “educational judgment” that “diversity is essential to its educational mission is one
to which we defer.” 539 U.S. at 328. Fisher I and Fisher II cemented this principle as a core
component of black-letter constitutional law. There, the Court held that once “a university gives
a ‘reasoned, principled explanation’ for its decision” to pursue diversity-related goals, “deference
must be given” to that “academic judgment,” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2208 (quoting Fisher I, 570
U.S. at 310). Fisher II—decided just two years ago—could not have put it more plainly:
9

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 16 of 35

“Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining . . . intangible characteristics, like
student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.” 136 S. Ct. at
2214.
Universities “occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at
329. Because universities protect the bedrock “freedoms of speech and thought,” id., courts have
long refrained from second-guessing their educational judgments.6 That deference naturally
extends to admissions criteria and decisions, which are paradigmatic academic judgments. See
Bakke, 438 U.S. at 312 (explaining that one of the “‘four essential freedoms’ of a university” is
“to determine for itself on academic grounds . . . who may be admitted to study”) (quoting
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 263 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in the result)).
Courts understand that each institution realizes its mission through its students. See, e.g., Arthur
L. Coleman et al., Coll. Bd. Advocacy & Policy Ctr., A Diversity Action Blueprint: Policy
Parameters and Model Practices For Higher Education Institutions 15 (September 2010)7
(explaining how admissions practices further mission-related goals). As such, courts grant
universities the freedom “to make [their] own judgments as to . . . the selection of [their] student
body,” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 329 (quoting Bakke, 438 U.S. at 312), including whether to pursue
diversity, including racial diversity, and how to conceive of it. Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2214.
These legal principles are grounded in practical realities. The Nation’s colleges and
universities are themselves diverse and “highly decentralized.” William G. Bowen et al., Equity
and Excellence in American Higher Education 68 (2005); see also United States v. Fordice, 505

6

See, e.g., Martin Trow, Federalism in American Higher Education, in Higher Learning in
America, 1980-2000, at 39 (Arthur Levine ed., 1993).
7

Available at https://professionals.collegeboard.org/pdf/10b2699diversityactionblueprint
web100922.pdf.
10

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 17 of 35

U.S. 717, 749 (1992) (Thomas, J., concurring) (describing higher education as a “diverse
assortment of institutions”). Amicus ACE alone represents more than 1,500 institutions, each of
which has its own mission, history, geography, location, curriculum, capabilities, and faculty.
Institutions can be public or private, small or large, urban or rural, focused on professions or the
liberal arts, religious or secular, or anything in between—factors that shape how an institution
interacts with and influences the broader world. Even within a single institution, school- or
program-specific missions can vary tremendously. What works for one graduate or professional
school may not work for an undergraduate college or a different graduate school at the same
university. See Amy N. Addams et al., Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls., Roadmap to Diversity:
Integrating Holistic Review Practices into Medical School Admissions Processes ix-x (2010).8
By necessity, then, each university’s unique mission and context may call for the need to
evaluate differently certain characteristics, experiences, and backgrounds of various prospective
students in order to achieve the university’s educational mission.
Courts therefore permit universities to pursue the version of diversity that best suits their
mission and goals, including through the limited consideration of race. See Fisher II, 136 S. Ct.
at 2214 (a university is free to seek its “own definition of . . . diversity”); Parents Involved in
Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 792 (2007) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part
and concurring in the judgment) (noting that the First Amendment affords universities “particular
latitude in defining diversity”). As far back as Bakke, the Supreme Court has ruled that “[t]he
diversity that furthers a compelling state interest encompasses a far broader array of
qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important
element.” 438 U.S. at 315. Since then, the Court’s precedent has only further pressed higher
8

Available at https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Roadmap%20to%20Diversity%20Integra
ting%20Holistic%20Review.pdf.
11

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 18 of 35

education to “assemble a student body that is not just racially diverse, but diverse along all of the
qualities valued by the university.” Grutter, 539 U.S at 340; see also id. at 321 (universities
must evaluate the “broad range of qualities and experiences that may be considered valuable
contributions to student body diversity.”).
The different forms of student diversity are nearly limitless, incorporating, for example,
those who have “lived or traveled widely abroad, are fluent in several languages, have overcome
personal adversity and family hardship, have exceptional records of extensive community
service, and have had successful careers in other fields.” Id. at 338. Moreover, campus diversity
not only varies between institutions; it is also “multi-dimensional” and layered—flexible enough
to allow the same college or graduate school to pursue several of its many different forms. See
Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2214 (citation omitted).
As a result, college and universities use diversity in distinct ways to advance their vastly
different identities, goals, and approaches to education. That freedom has made college
campuses the “laboratories for experimentation” that they are. Id. (quoting United States v.
Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 581 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring)). And it has helped establish
American higher education as the greatest in the world. See, e.g., David F. Labaree, A System
Without A Plan: Emergence of An American System of Higher Education in the Twentieth
Century, 3 Int’l J. Historiography Educ. 46, 46 (2013) (concluding that university autonomy has
contributed to American higher education’s “global reach and broad esteem”); Philip G. Altbach,
Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University, and Development 55 (1998)
(American higher education is the most productive in the world “in terms of research, knowledge

12

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 19 of 35

production and distribution, and training of high-level personnel.”).9
II.

HOLISTIC REVIEW IS CRITICAL TO ACHIEVING THE EDUCATIONAL
BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY.
A.

Holistic Review Is What Allows An Institution To Fully Evaluate An
Applicant, Including The Applicant’s Potential Contribution to Campus
Diversity.

Holistic review is a “highly individualized” process that permits universities to pursue
their own conceptions of campus diversity. Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337. It is a comprehensive
evaluation, which “giv[es] serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute” to
a campus community. Id. (emphasis added). Relevant admissions criteria, which can include a
student’s race, are “flexibl[y] assess[ed]” in their totality, not treated as various inputs in an
“admissions formula.” Id. at 315, 343. The process is evidence-based, data-informed, and
rigorous. It is guided by well-developed (but nonetheless constantly evolving) evaluation
systems and informed by professional judgment in undergraduate, graduate, and professional
school admissions.
Because holistic review focuses on individual applicants, the Supreme Court has held that
consideration of race as one aspect of this process is permissible. See id. at 337; Fisher II, 136 S.
Ct. at 2205 (reaffirming Grutter’s holding to allow “the University of Michigan Law School’s
system of holistic review”). In contrast to racial quotas or formulas, which the Supreme Court
has struck down as overly broad and mechanical, holistic review does not treat “an applicant’s
race or ethnicity [as] the defining feature of his or her application.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337. At
most, it reflects the consideration of multiple background factors that may include race,

9

See also Brief of the College Board, AACRAO, NACAC, and LSAC Amici Curiae, Supporting
Respondents, Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (No. 14-981) (“College Board Amicus Br.”).
13

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 20 of 35

“ensur[ing] that all factors that may contribute to student body diversity are meaningfully
considered alongside race in admissions decisions.” Id.
With holistic review the institution focuses on no single, dispositive feature of an
application. High school grades and standardized test scores alone cannot convey all that an
applicant can offer to a campus community.10 These numeric indicators say little, for example,
about a student’s character and may understate a student’s potential. Id. at 315 (approving an
admissions policy that “requires admissions officials to look beyond grades and test scores to
other criteria that are important to the Law School’s educational objectives”). Extracurricular
activities as well are often only a “single metric . . . [that] will capture certain types of people and
miss others.” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2213. Individual subjective factors, too, often touch on
only one piece of a candidate’s overall profile and merit.
Each institution that uses holistic review therefore strives to consider the whole of each
applicant, looking to a broad spectrum of academic and non-academic considerations. By way of
example, College Board’s Admissions Models Project identified nearly 30 academic factors and
almost 70 non-academic factors. See generally Gretchen W. Rigol, Coll. Bd., Admissions
Decision-Making Models: How U.S. Institutions of Higher Education Select Undergraduate
Students (2003).11 The academic factors naturally include quantitative metrics, such as class
rank and standardized test scores, but also can incorporate qualitative measures, such as
“[i]ntellectual curiosity” and “[g]rasp of world events.” Id. at 75 (Appendix D). Non-academic
factors are even more wide-ranging. They account for an applicant’s personal background, like
her upbringing and life experiences, or whether she will be the first generation in her family to
10

See College Board Amicus Br., supra note 9, at 13-15 (“Academic factors represent only one
dimension of the ultimate decision to admit.”).
11

Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562589.pdf.
14

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 21 of 35

go to college. Id. at 75-77. Extracurricular activities and achievements are often considered,
along with unusual obstacles an applicant may have overcome, such as family problems, health
challenges, frequent moves, or responsibility for raising a family—to name just a few. Id.
Holistic review even looks to geography, accounting for whether the prospective student is from
a disadvantaged area or far-away state or went to a high school with few or no previous
applicants. Id. Lastly, universities may consider the race of an applicant, but only when treated
as a narrowly tailored “plus” factor as an aspect of the student’s life experience within the allembracing contextual, holistic review of an individual applicant. Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334.
Because every institution has a distinct mission, the factors that each considers—and how
heavily they are weighed—vary across universities and even across academic years. See Jerome
A. Lucido, How Admissions Decisions Get Made, in Handbook of Strategic Enrollment
Management 147, 148-149 (Don Hollser, Bob Bontrager & Assocs. eds., 2015). Even though
holistic review flexibly considers the totality of intersecting factors, it must begin within each
institution’s own context. As such, no two schools will have exactly the same holistic review
process. See Rigol, supra, at 1 (“[T]here are almost as many different approaches to selection as
there are institutions.”). Indeed, each university’s particular mission and characteristics,
academic approaches and philosophies, academic and non-academic programs, and projections
and targets for the “yield” of admitted students are all taken into account. Lucindo, supra, at
147-149.12
Although each institution applies holistic review differently in the particulars,
“individualized consideration” of the applicant is always the lodestar. Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334,
337; Bakke, 438 U.S. at 318 n.52 (“denial . . . of this right to individualized consideration” is the
12

See also College Board Amicus Br., supra note 9.
15

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 22 of 35

“principle evil”).13 Accordingly, each applicant stands on equal “footing for consideration.”
Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334, 337 (citation omitted). Holistic review recognizes that each individual
factor provides the most value when viewed in combination with other application elements.
See, e.g., Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2213 (discussing the importance of considering non-quantitative
factors, such as “a family crisis” that could have harmed a student’s academic performance). For
that reason, no single consideration is sufficient to disqualify a candidate or guarantee their
admission. See Grutter, 539 at 315 (“[E]ven the highest possible score does not guarantee
admission to the Law School. Nor does a low score automatically disqualify an applicant.”
(internal citation omitted)); id. at 337 (“There is no policy, either de jure or de facto, of
automatic acceptance or rejection based on any single ‘soft’ variable.”).14 Indeed, universities
review applications not simply to evaluate a student’s accomplishments or presentation, but to
determine how an applicant took advantage of opportunities. See Lucido, supra, at 157
(Universities “seek to understand the conditions under which each applicant has performed and
to make judgments based on the context of those conditions.”).

13

This individualized review is critical to college admissions system throughout the country.
See, e.g., Undergraduate Admission: Admission Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon Univ.,
http://coursecatalog.web.cmu.edu/servicesandoptions/undergraduateadmission/ (last visited July
25, 2018) (stating the university makes all necessary efforts to “treat every applicant as an
individual and take great care to make [the university’s] admission decisions fair, thorough and
sensitive.”); Admission Review Factors and Process, Univ. of Md.,
https://admissions.umd.edu/apply/admission-review-factors-and-process (last visited July 25,
2018) (“The undergraduate admissions process is rigorous and individualized. As the university
must make fine distinctions among large numbers of highly qualified applicants, the ability to
assess consistently all information presented in the application becomes increasingly
important.”).
14

Once again, specific college admissions policies bear out these statements. See, e.g., Penn
State Undergraduate Admissions: Application Review Process for First-Year Students, Penn.
State Univ., https://admissions.psu.edu/info/future/firstyear/applicationreview/ (last visited July
25, 2018) (“There are no such things as ‘cut offs.’ We review students in a holistic manner,
taking into account a full range of factors.”).
16

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 23 of 35

This individualized process is rigorous, with colleges and universities usually relying on
multi-tiered review processes to assess an applicant’s qualities on a case-by-case basis.
Commonly, after initial readers weigh dozens of factors to make preliminary determinations,
second readers or admissions committees assess the ways an individual applicant is likely to
contribute to a campus community. And universities are constantly re-evaluating their processes
and decision-making, working to improve and build upon their outcomes year over year. This
thorough, individualized, and ever-evolving process allows schools to identify more accurately
and admit students who will further their own school-specific missions.
Of course, as suggested above, holistic review is not just for the Ivy League. According
to a recent ACE study, 76 percent of all participating institutions, including 92 percent of more
selective schools, reported using holistic review in their admissions process. See Lorelle L.
Espinosa et al., Am. Council on Educ., Race, Class, & College Access: Achieving Diversity in a
Shifting Legal Landscape 31-32 (2015).15 Even schools with unusually large student bodies and
applicant pools use holistic review to admit the students that will best further their educational
missions.16 Although holistic review is not always the most expedient way to assemble a class, it
is an indispensable tool for colleges to achieve their diversity goals, advance their missions, and
comply with the law.

15

Available at http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Race-Class-and-College-AccessAchieving-Diversity-in-a-Shifting-Legal-Landscape.pdf.
16

As just one example, Pennsylvania State University receives over 70,000 undergraduate
applications, yet gives each a “holistic assessment,” looking to “academic courses, grades and
levels of those courses and standardized test scores, plus additional factors that may include an
audition, a portfolio review, the geographic and cultural background of the student, the personal
statement, and the activities list.” Penn State Undergraduate Admissions, supra note 14.
17

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 24 of 35

B.

Admissions Decisions Under A Holistic Review Framework Cannot Be
Reduced To An Easy-To-Predict Formula.

Admitting a class is both a science and an art. Although the process is informed by
objective data, there are often qualitative factors that are decisive for one candidate or another.
Thousands of applicants to Harvard and other highly selective colleges have literally perfect
academic credentials, served as high school valedictorians, and earned the very top standardized
test scores. See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 3-4 & n.4, ECF No. 418 (noting that more than 5,000
domestic applicants to the Class of 2019 had a perfect math or verbal SAT score, more than
twice the number ultimately admitted (citing SMF ¶¶ 1-2, 5-9)); see also Letter from Timothy
C.J. Blanchard, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Office for Civil Rights, Region II, to Christopher L.
Eisgruber, President, Princeton Univ. 13 (Sept. 9, 2015) (“Princeton Compliance Review
Letter”) (noting similar statistics for Princeton).17 There are more applicants with top academic
scores than available seats. Because of that fact—and the fact that Harvard and other selective
institutions are looking for students who can contribute more than quantitative academic
acumen— admissions committees must look to a wide range of additional factors to assemble a
class that best suits their needs and goals.
These additional factors are increasingly important across all of higher education. Over
1,000 accredited four-year undergraduate colleges no longer require applicants to submit
standardized test scores.18 Some institutions have even experimented with a holistic review
17

Available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/02086002-a.pdf.

18

Natasha Bach, Why the University of Chicago Is Dropping Its SAT/ACT Test Requirement,
Fortune (June 15, 2018), http://fortune.com/2018/06/15/university-of-chicago-drops-act-sat-testrequirement-for-admissions/ (“More than 1,000 accredited, four year colleges and universities
are now test-optional, including Bates College, Pitzer College, and Wesleyan University.”);
Dawn Rhodes, University of Chicago To Stop Requiring ACT and SAT Scores for Prospective
Undergraduates, Chi. Trib. (June 14, 2018), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/
breaking/ct-university-chicago-sat-act-20180614-story.html.
18

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 25 of 35

process that does not turn on test scores at all.19 These institutions—like any other—must look
to high school grades, grade trajectory and qualitative criteria to decide whether to extend an
offer of admission. When considering the mission of institutions to prepare students to succeed
and contribute to a diverse world, and when an institution’s approach to holistic review is
combined with its attention to other admissions goals and considerations—such as sport teams
and orchestra rosters, tuition benefits to children of university employees, alumni relations, and
geographic diversity—it is not feasible to say that one characteristic or another is the reason a
student received an offer of admission.
Qualitative factors play an even greater role as institutions seek candidates that will best
promote their unique “mission[s].” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2214; Grutter, 539 U.S. at 328.
These judgments are typically not susceptible to formulaic decision-making and necessarily
entail a degree of judgment by educators and admissions experts. For example, many medical
schools advance their missions by selecting students with backgrounds and skill sets necessary to
break socio-cultural barriers to access to healthcare. See Joseph R. Betancourt et al., Defining
Cultural Competence: A Practical Framework for Addressing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in
Health and Health Care, 118 Pub. Health Rep. 293, 297-300 (2003). Careful exercise of such
judgment in examination of a prospective student’s entire application is required to make
admission decisions.
The same is true for undergraduate admissions criteria, where each school’s distinctive
mission drives qualitative factors it considers and emphasizes when assessing many more
qualified students than can be admitted. For example, the New Mexico Military Institute (an
ACE Member) seeks to instill military-type discipline into its students through a highly
19

Cecilia Capuzzi Simon, The Test-Optional Surge, N.Y. Times (Oct. 28, 2015),
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/education/edlife/the-test-optional-surge.html.
19

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 26 of 35

structured learning environment. To further its mission, the Institute specifically seeks students
who will promote “qualities of honor, integrity, and responsibility”20—an inherently holistic
assessment. On the other end of the spectrum, many schools seek to cultivate a less structured
environment, imposing no curricular requirements and permitting students to take any class they
wish pass/fail.21 Because not all students will thrive in that type of setting, these universities
must actively identify students who “want to create and navigate their own intellectual
journeys.”22 This judgment again calls for the assessment of qualitative factors, which can be
made only after considering how multiple elements of an application relate to one another.
Admissions decisions therefore cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula in which
courts can look for a binary outcome based on one or a handful of characteristics alone.
Objective factors—like numerical measures of academic or extracurricular success—tell only
part of the story. And all students are evaluated individually, not as members of any particular
group, racial or otherwise. For that reason, universities “frequently accept[]” white applicants
with grades and test scores lower than certain minority applicants, even though statistical models
may have predicted the opposite. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 338. Similarly, a thorough
government compliance review showed that Princeton University “frequently” accepts
“applicants from Asian backgrounds with grades and test scores lower than rejected non-Asian
applicants.” See Princeton Compliance Review Letter, supra, at 13. In short, both quantitative
data and qualitative assessments drive admissions decisions, no variables are dispositive in all
20

About NMMI, New Mexico Military Instit., https://www.nmmi.edu/about-nmmi/ (last visited
July 25, 2018).
21

See The Brown Degree: Grade Options, Brown Univ., https://www.brown.edu/academics/
college/degree/policies/grade-options (last visited July 25, 2018).
22

Undergraduate Admission, Brown Univ., https://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/
undergraduate-admission (last visited July 25, 2018).
20

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 27 of 35

cases, and every variable takes on new meaning when viewed in the context of an individual’s
entire application and in relation to other applications under review. Statistical analyses that fail
to address or inadequately address the countless variables involved in admissions decisions can
paint distorted pictures that courts should not accept.
Harvard’s approach to holistic admission decisions has been widely adopted throughout
higher education. Decades ago, Harvard helped establish the basic framework for holistic
review. See Bakke, 438 U.S. at 316, 318 (stating that Harvard’s admissions policy offers an
“illuminating example” of how to “treat[] each applicant as an individual in the admissions
process”). And in both Grutter and Bakke, the Supreme Court identified it as a model other
institutions should follow. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337 (“Like the Harvard plan, [Michigan]
Law School’s admissions policy ‘is flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of
diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same
footing for consideration . . . .’” (quoting Bakke, 428 U.S. at 317)).23 Harvard’s system and
similar ones in place at hundreds of institutions nationwide strike the delicate balance between
“the pursuit of [educational] diversity [and] the constitutional promise of equal treatment and
dignity.” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2214.
A victory for plaintiff could upend this evolved and evolving system. In a nation that is
more connected and racially and ethnically diverse than ever, such an outcome would deprive
many students of the critical benefits of campus diversity and thus the education they will need
as citizens and leaders in the 21st Century.

23

See also Gratz, 539 U.S. at 272 (favoring Harvard’s admissions policy as “instructive in our
consideration of” the University of Michigan’s college admissions program).
21

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 28 of 35

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment and grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Respectfully submitted,
July 30, 2018

/s/ Natashia Tidwell
Natashia Tidwell (BBO #657679)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
100 High Street, 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
[phone]
[e-mail]
Of counsel:
Peter G. McDonough
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
One Dupont Circle
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]
[e-mail]
Stephanie J. Gold
Jessica L. Ellsworth
Joel Buckman
Matthew J. Higgins
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]
Attorneys for Amici Curiae

22

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 29 of 35

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to
the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies
will be sent via mail to those indicated as non-registered participants on July 30, 2018.
/s/ Natashia Tidwell

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 30 of 35

ADDENDUM

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 31 of 35

ADDENDUM – LIST OF AMICI CURIAE
The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) is the national agency for the
accreditation of professional degree programs in pharmacy and providers of continuing
pharmacy education. ACPE also offers evaluation and certification of professional degree
programs internationally and with ASHP accredits pharmacy technician education and training
programs.
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) is a national alliance
of educator preparation programs dedicated to high-quality, evidence-based preparation that
assures educators are profession-ready as they enter the classroom. AACTE member institutions
include public and private colleges and universities in every state, the District of Columbia, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam. Through advocacy and capacity building, AACTE promotes
innovation and effective practices that strengthen educator preparation.
The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN)— is the national voice for
academic nursing. Representing over 800 member schools offering baccalaureate and graduate
programs in nursing at public and private universities nationwide, AACN works to establish
quality standards for nursing education; assists schools in implementing those standards;
influences the nursing profession to improve health care; and promotes public support for
professional nursing education, research, and practice.
The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO),
founded in 1910, is a non-profit, voluntary, professional association of more than 11,000 higher
education professionals who represent approximately 2,600 institutions in more than 40
countries. Its mission is to provide professional development, guidelines, and voluntary
standards to be used by higher education officials regarding the best practices in records
management, admissions, enrollment management, administrative information technology, and
student services. AACRAO represents institutions in every part of the higher education
community, from large public institutions to small, private liberal arts colleges.
The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) is the primary advocacy
organization for the nation’s community colleges. It represents more than 1,100 two-year,
associate degree-granting institutions.
The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) is a Washington,
D.C.-based higher education association of more than 400 public colleges, universities, and
systems whose members share a learning- and teaching-centered culture, a historic commitment
to underserved student populations, and a dedication to research and creativity that advances
their regions’ economic progress and cultural development. These are institutions Delivering
America’s Promise of Opportunities for All.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is a non-profit organization of
over 40,000 faculty, librarians, graduate students, and academic professionals. Its purpose is to
advance academic freedom, the free exchange of ideas in higher education, and shared university

A1

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 32 of 35

governance; to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education; and to
ensure higher education’s contribution to the common good.
The American College Personnel Association (ACPA) College Student Educators
International is one of the largest comprehensive student affairs association. ACPA advances
student affairs, engages students for a lifetime of learning and discovery, and transforms higher
education through social justice advocacy. ACPA, with over 5,000 active members, supports and
fosters college student learning through the generation and dissemination of knowledge, which
informs scholarship, policies, practices, and programs for student affairs professionals and the
higher education community.
The American Dental Education Association (ADEA) is The Voice of Dental Education. Its
members include all 66 U.S. dental schools, over 800 allied and advanced dental education
programs and more than 20,000 individuals.
The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) is the unifying voice of our
nation’s 38 Tribal Colleges and Universities—federally recognized public institutions working to
strengthen tribal nations and make a lasting difference in the lives of American Indians and
Alaska Natives. Through public policy, advocacy, research, and program initiatives, AIHEC
strives to ensure strong tribal sovereignty through excellence in American Indian higher
education.
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) is the national professional,
scientific, and credentialing association for 198,000 members and affiliates who are audiologists;
speech-language pathologists; speech, language, and hearing scientists; audiology and speechlanguage pathology support personnel; and students.
The Association of American Universities (AAU) is a non-profit organization, founded in 1900
to advance the international standing of United States research universities. AAU’s mission is to
shape policy for higher education, science, and innovation; promote best practices in
undergraduate and graduate education; and strengthen the contributions of research universities
to society. Its members include 62 public and private research universities.
The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) has approximately 1,400
member institutions, including accredited public and private colleges, community colleges, and
universities of every type and size. Its mission is to advance liberal education, equity and quality
in undergraduate education in service to democracy.
The Association of American Law Schools (AALS), founded in 1900, is a nonprofit
association of 179 law schools. Its members enroll most of the nation’s law students and
produce the majority of the country’s lawyers and judges, as well as many of its lawmakers. The
mission of AALS is to uphold and advance excellence in legal education. In support of this
mission, AALS promotes the core values of excellence in teaching and scholarship, academic
freedom, and diversity, including diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints, while seeking to
improve the legal profession, to foster justice, and to serve our many communities–local,
national and international.
A2

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 33 of 35

Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)—represents all 151 accredited U.S.
medical schools, nearly 400 teaching hospitals and health systems, and 90 academic and
scientific societies.
The Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) serves as the collective voice
of U.S. Catholic higher education. Through programs and services, ACCU strengthens and
promotes the Catholic identity and mission of its member institutions so that all associated with
Catholic higher education can contribute to the greater good of the world and the Church.
The Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) represents over 6,000 board
members who govern community, technical, and junior colleges.
The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) is the only national
association that serves the interests and needs of academic governing boards, boards of
institutionally related foundations, and campus CEOs and other senior-level campus
administrators on issues related to higher education governance and leadership.
The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU) represents all 28 Jesuit
institutions in the U.S. and is affiliated with over 100 Jesuit institutions worldwide.
The Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area (CUWMA) is a
nonprofit organization founded in 1965 to advance joint educational opportunities for students;
collaborate on critical issues and shape policy in higher education; collaborate with regional
governments, businesses, and organizations to ensure an educated workforce and citizenry; and
increase the postsecondary attendance rates of students in the Washington, DC region. CUWMA
currently has 17 members across all sectors of nonprofit higher education.
The Council for Opportunity in Education (COE) is a nonprofit organization, established in
1981, dedicated to furthering the expansion of college opportunities for low-income, firstgeneration students, and students with disabilities. Through its numerous membership services,
the Council works in conjunction with colleges, universities, and agencies that host Federal
TRIO Programs that help approximately 810,000 low-income students and students with
disabilities each year receive college access and retention services.
The Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of NEASC is the regional accrediting
agency for degree-granting institutions of higher education in the six New England states. The
Commission’s dual roles are quality assurance to the public and quality improvement for
accredited colleges and universities.
The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) is an organization of approximately 500 institutions
of higher education in the United States, Canada, and across the globe engaged in graduate
education, research, scholarship, and the preparation of candidates for master’s and doctoral
degrees.

A3

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 34 of 35

The Council of Independent Colleges (CIC) represents 684 private, nonprofit liberal arts
colleges and universities and 83 state councils and other higher education organizations.
EDUCAUSE is a nonprofit association and the foremost community of information technology
leaders and professionals committed to advancing higher education. Through analysis,
advocacy, and professional development, EDUCAUSE supports IT professionals and the
contributions technology makes to institutional and community-wide strategic initiatives.
EDUCAUSE membership includes 2,300 colleges, universities, and related organizations.
The Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) is a global, non-profit association of
more than 220 leading graduate business schools. Founded in 1953, we are actively committed
to advancing the art and science of admissions by convening and representing the industry and
offering best-in-class products and services for schools and students. GMAC owns and
administers the Graduate Management Admission Test® (GMAT®) exam, used by more than
7,000 graduate programs worldwide.
The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) is a nonprofit organization devoted to furthering
access, quality, and fairness in law school admission. LSAC annually helps more than 60,000
law school candidates navigate the admission process, administers the Law School Admission
Test to more than 100,000 test takers worldwide, and provides the essential admission software
and data relied upon by over 220 member law schools. LSAC works actively to promote
diversity, equity, and inclusion in legal education and the legal profession through a wide range
of programs, including law school and prelaw programs for underrepresented populations,
regional forums to connect law schools with prospective candidates, LGBTQ outreach, support
for people with special needs of all types, and partnership with Khan Academy to offer free,
personalized LSAT preparation for all.
The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) is the agency that accredits
degree-granting institutions in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The mission of
MSCHE is to assure students and the public of the educational quality of higher education. The
Commission’s accreditation process ensures institutional accountability, self-appraisal,
improvement, and innovation through peer review and the rigorous application of standards
within the context of institutional mission.
The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), founded in 1937, is
an organization of nearly 16,000 professionals from around the world dedicated to serving
students as they make choices about pursuing postsecondary education. NACAC is committed
to maintaining high standards that foster ethical and social responsibility among those involved
in the transition process, as outlined in the Statement of Principles of Good Practice: NACAC's
Code of Ethics and Professional Practices (SPGP:CEPP).
The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), founded
in 1962, is a nonprofit professional organization representing chief administrative and financial
officers at more than 2,100 colleges and universities across the country. NACUBO’s mission is
to advance the economic viability, business practices, and support of higher education
institutions in pursuit of their missions.
A4

Case 1:14-cv-14176-ADB Document 442 Filed 07/30/18 Page 35 of 35

The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) is the
preeminent voice for diversity officers in higher education. Its membership includes more than
600 individuals representing more than 250 colleges and universities, affiliated professional
organizations, and ten state/regional NADOHE chapters.
The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) serves as the
unified national voice of private, non-profit higher education in the United States. It has more
than 1,000 members nationwide.
The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) represents
nearly 20,000 student financial assistance professionals at approximately 3,000 colleges,
universities, and career schools across the country. It provides professional development and
services for financial aid administrators; advocates for public policies that increase student
access and success; serves as a forum on student financial aid issues, and is committed to
diversity throughout all activities.
Since its founding in 1776, Phi Beta Kappa has celebrated excellence in the liberal arts and
sciences and championed freedom of thought and diversity of opinion. Phi Beta Kappa is a
nonprofit membership organization with over 500,000 members worldwide and chapters at 286
colleges and universities in the United States. As America’s most prestigious academic honor
society, Phi Beta Kappa advocates for the value and benefits of liberal arts and sciences
education.
The Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA) is the leading association
for the advancement, health, and sustainability of the student affairs profession.
The WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) is a regional accrediting
agency serving a diverse membership of public and private higher education institutions
throughout California, Hawaii, and the Pacific as well as a limited number of institutions outside
the U.S. Through its work of peer review, based on standards agreed to by the membership, the
Commission encourages continuous institutional improvement and assures the membership and
its constituencies, including the public, that accredited institutions are fulfilling their missions in
service to their students and the public good.

A5